New Additions to RTMT

[z]

The RTMT T-RAM stations are finally ready, and can be downloaded from the LEX.  Everything you need to know about installing them and using them is in the ReadMe file; it is extremely important to read this whole file.  Good luck!  Support questions about the new stations should be directed to The RTMT V3 Support Thread.

Cogeo, I am preparing a reply to your message, but on my current schedule, it would have delayed the release of these stations a few days more.  But rest assured it is coming!  And thanks again for all your help that made these stations possible.

[SimFox]

Z, Cogeo, you are doing great job here! Don't take to you r heart what had been said in the T-RAM thread. I think it is a bit of a "lost in translation" and a bit "it's a daddies girl" thing.

You stations are fine! Everything could stand an improvement - that is a granted, but they fill definite need of many players and people have somewhat different vision of what is realistic and what is not, especilally in regard of the city-building game.

Cogeo, you last big post sounds like an invitation to a tender. You sort of give techincal specs of required stations/stops :-) Is that so?

I have my couple of cents to add to the "thinking hat"

Quite a progress!

So for the straight T-RAM puzzle pieces (the diagonal ones are going to be released in the future) we have several models for the GLR shelter prop:
- Gshmails' : This is indeed good looking, and avoids the problem with the platforms by using only one platform in the middle. Maybe someone could ask gshmails to make a diagonal version too.
- SFBT : really nice, and no platforms!
- Chrisim's : two simple narrow side platforms; they barely fit, I would say they rather protrude to the road quite a bit.
- Antoine's : this is good-looking (well aesthetics is subjective), but it was desinged for the GLR-in-Avenue puzzle pieces (which do have more space in the middle); as a result the poles protrude in the road. I think we should ask Antoine to narrow it a little (and why not, make a diagonal version too). There is another reason for updating this, the model as far as I can see has been modded for (semi)transparency; without redesigning the LODs, this model will definitely have glitches, like the poles at the back shown in front of passing trams. I'm not sure if this can work by changing the LODs alone, it may instead require splitting it into two parts (front and back half) and combining them again in iLive. This, however is too tedious, and success isn't guaranteed.
- Mine (the ones currently included in RTMT) I will discuss this in some more detail:

- First of all, these were designed for GLR-in-Avenue too, and that's why they don't fit well in T-RAM. I wanted outer platforms too, and made them as wide as possible (they are still narrow though). As I would prefer RTMT having only one GLR Shelter prop, used in both GLR/Ave and T-RAM, I would suggest that we make a narrower version (for use in both cases).
- This is quite easy to be done, although the gmax file is currently missing. This is because the model actually consists of three parts: the poles and timetables, the roof (semitransparent) and the platforms. The reason I made it this way was technical: LODs are quite easier to make, and there are problems with shadows too ie while the roof and the poles should be a ground-level model (Is Ground Model = true), so that they display shadows, the platforms should preferably not, because the low height causes problems with shadows (the model may be obscured by its own shadow, or cause a "grille" effect - both visible in gshmails' model). A sideffect of having separate models is caused by another SC4 bug, the way shadows are rendered on top of another model (an awful grille effect is displayed). These were worked around by exploiting another... SC4 bug, ie that of the models displayed by using the Resource Key Type 4 property, only the first displays shadows. The part with the poles and timetables was the one that was put first, so only this casts a shadow. This way the platforms are not burried under their shadows, and get very little shadow (from the poles). The roof doesn't really cast a shadow, but this isn't very noticable, and it would cause a grille on the platforms. So I think for a the next version a new prop should be designed.

My proposed changes to the design are:
- The outer platforms should become quite narrower, so as to fit in T-RAM. As this is a separate model, only could make only this part (at least for testing).
- The platforms should be lowered further. As these don't really display shadows, the smaller height isn't a problem. The taller the height, the narrower the platform looks.
- For the same reason, a striped model should not be made. Not only it makes the platforms look taller/narrower, it acts as an eye-catcher too, and for an area that the designer would instead seek to avoid. The simpler and duller the texture here, the better. Such narrow platforms can never look really good, so the solution (if you want platforms) is try to make the observer focus at other parts of the model.
- As the platforms cause so many problems, one could consider making a model without platforms, as Andreas suggested.
- Finally there are going to be diagonal versions, so making a new model is unavoidable. It can be painted in more colours, so make a whole set of models. The gmax (BAT) for is currently missing, but such a model is quite easy to make. The roof is part of a cylinder; selecting the desired (or all, if the cylinder was sliced) edges, and clicking "Create Shape from Edges" creates a shape (spline) consisting of the selected edges. The shape doesn't need to be collapsed to mesh (to show in the export), instead an Edit Mesh modifier can be addeed, so that it is possible to change the splines' thickness easily, and select the one that looks best. The "stem" in the middle is a simple cylinder object. The glass is a sliced cylinder (or extruded arc) of a radious slightly smaller than that of the cylinder used to create the lattice. I think such a model would be a good "first BAT" for anyone who would like start BATting. Using the very same technique, more variants can be made, like with a single curved surface instead of two (with the edges being lower than the middle), or with level (but inclined) shelter instead of a curved one.
- Maybe each shelter could consist of three segments instead of four. This model has "too much lattice", and the semitransparency is hardly visible. Removing one segment will make semitrnsparency more noticable. The opacity could be somewhat lowered (eg try 40%, 33% or even 30%, instead of 50%), if it still looks too opaque.
- The lanterns (yes, they do exist - mostly visible in night view) could be a bit enlarged.
- Some players have commented that the model is oversized (tall?). I think it was made just tall enough to accomodate tram automata. Pls note that some of them have pantographs which make them quite tall. I think the most relevant person here is vester, and maybe he could be asked.
- I'm not an architrect, so I can't think of a good design, but maybe there's another thing that could change: the model has four poles, spaced evenly; maybe it could have five poles, but without the half-length empty spaces at the extends, ie |‾‾|‾‾|‾‾|‾‾| instead of ‾|‾‾|‾‾|‾‾|‾  (the length and spacing of the poles would remain the same). Maybe someone with an architectural background could help here.
Or whatever you think it could improve the model.

Making the platform into separate and NOT ground model prop is a great idea. since they are so "law-rise" they wouldn't created any markable shadow of they own in game. But this way they will be receiving the shadows from both - own canopy and other game elements. This is a very good idea cause other wise those platforms glow un-naturally in the dark of the well build areas. Things that have significant hight pass easier in this respect then something that is essentially on the ground. That is just theoreticizing on my part... To be honest I'm complete nub in the regards of all those Resource Key  properties...

Outer platforms - those could be considered not a platform per se, but rather the step to help get into the t-ram. Even if it is a law-floor model it may be helpful. Or may be even skipped - again for those law floor model (it is about 15cm from the ground as is!) Anyway even some "full blown platforms like taht are often just under a 1 m in width.

Central platform... although most of the time the platforms are on the outer side and in most cases/places rolling stock has doors on the outer side there are some exceptions - Brussels, for instance , or new series of t-rams in St.Petersburg(the russian one) they have doors on both sides and do have some stops with central island. Although such platforms are always quite wide...

Canopy and it's hight. I do thin that most of the canopies are made way to tall. It's skews the overall proportions of the game - things are way to equalized - big are made smaller - train stations, stadiums, Opera house most skyscrapers have ridiculously small footprint etc, while bus stops etc are hugely oversize. Although it wouldn't be realistic to restore total "proportional harmony" I thing some move to that direction is a good one. Most cities one see in LJs or MDs do suffer from bad case of the rhythmical monotony which makes them, well, boring all alike. So 12-15 m tall canopy for  at-ram stop isn't a good choice. BTW Vesters' tram is only 6,5m tall (and it easily could be adjusted downwards by say ,5 m) so canopy that is about 6,7-7m should be totally sufficient.

Making such a small elements for SC isn't as easy and straight forward as it may seem. So It could be actually quite challenging as a first project, or to be precise I doubt that such first attempt at BATing will be really successful. Attention to proportions and particularly fine-tuning of the render settings here play key role. First does normally come with time, second does require some other software than GMAX (unfortunately) and that software should be used in other way than just faster GMAX.

[allan_kuan1992]

Hmm... this reminds me of a 1x1 station I made recently. Rather than being on the network it's off to the side but people still manage to get on and off the train.

This would help simplify building stations in awkward places (like the T-RAM or in places where normal stations don't work properly). In certain cases it also gives the effect of a one-platform station =O

- Allan Kuan

[z]

SimFox - Thanks for your support, and your contribution to this discussion!  I'll have a more specific response to your message shortly, but first, I am overdue for a reply to Cogeo.

Cogeo - There's a lot of useful feedback here (as usual!).  I'll do my best to address this, and it would be good to hear from other people as well.

So for the straight T-RAM puzzle pieces (the diagonal ones are going to be released in the future) we have several models for the GLR shelter prop:
  ...
- Antoine's : this is good-looking (well aesthetics is subjective), but it was desinged for the GLR-in-Avenue puzzle pieces (which do have more space in the middle); as a result the poles protrude in the road. I think we should ask Antoine to narrow it a little (and why not, make a diagonal version too). There is another reason for updating this, the model as far as I can see has been modded for (semi)transparency; without redesigning the LODs, this model will definitely have glitches, like the poles at the back shown in front of passing trams. I'm not sure if this can work by changing the LODs alone, it may instead require splitting it into two parts (front and back half) and combining them again in iLive. This, however is too tedious, and success isn't guaranteed.

I agree with you here; like most of the shelters designed for GLR-in-Avenue, this one's just a little bit too wide.  I've been in contact with Antoine a couple of times over the last few months, and unfortunately, he has given up the game completely and thrown away all his models.  He was very apologetic.  But we're free to do what we want with what we do have.  So for now, I was just planning on using this shelter as it is; it's no extra work to have it available.  If we're going to do diagonal stations, this shelter will have to be redone from scratch anyway, so the size issues can be addressed then.  I'm going to talk to jestarr and see if we can prioritize the diagonal models so that the ones that will benefit other parts of the game get done first.

- Mine (the ones currently included in RTMT) I will discuss this in some more detail:

- First of all, these were designed for GLR-in-Avenue too, and that's why they don't fit well in T-RAM. I wanted outer platforms too, and made them as wide as possible (they are still narrow though). As I would prefer RTMT having only one GLR Shelter prop, used in both GLR/Ave and T-RAM, I would suggest that we make a narrower version (for use in both cases).

Ideally, I agree - it's certainly a simpler to maintain.  But as V4 will be able to automatically use different models for different roadway types, this is less of a maintenance problem than it otherwise would be.  And unfortunately, the layout of GLR-in-Avenue and T-RAM are sufficiently different that it may be difficult to do this while maintaining the ideal look for each type of station.  The two sets of tracks are wider apart in T-RAM, while at the same time they're closer to the road.  (I know you've noticed these differences; I just wanted to point this out for the benefit of other readers.)  On the other hand, the response to the released T-RAM stations, which contain the unmodified GLR-in-avenue shelters, has been overwhelmingly positive.  So I think what we do in the end will depend largely upon what resources we have available.

My proposed changes to the design are:
- The outer platforms should become quite narrower, so as to fit in T-RAM. As this is a separate model, only could make only this part (at least for testing).

Like SimFox, I like this idea.  It may even help the previous problem, in that the same station could be kept for GLR-in-Avenue and T-RAM, with only the platforms differering.

- The platforms should be lowered further. As these don't really display shadows, the smaller height isn't a problem. The taller the height, the narrower the platform looks.

Again, this would work out well if we had separate platforms for GLR-in_Avenue and T-RAM.  One word of caution here - these stations don't level the ground when they're plopped, so if the platforms are too low, then if they're not placed on perfectly level ground, the platforms tend to disappear below ground level.

- For the same reason, a striped model should not be made. Not only it makes the platforms look taller/narrower, it acts as an eye-catcher too, and for an area that the designer would instead seek to avoid. The simpler and duller the texture here, the better. Such narrow platforms can never look really good, so the solution (if you want platforms) is try to make the observer focus at other parts of the model.

I can see two points of view here.  On one hand, yours makes a lot of sense, and I think a lot of people will agree with it.  On the other hand, some people, such as myself, like the stripes; since the platforms stick out into the road a bit, the stripes have the additional function of warning the traffic away from the platforms.  Since I think both points of view are reasonable, I have left the stripes in, and given the users instructions in the ReadMe file on how to remove them.

- As the platforms cause so many problems, one could consider making a model without platforms, as Andreas suggested.

This also sounds good; certainly, there are enough real life examples of this.

I think the lot still needs some work to make it like the rest of RTMT.
- The GLR stations could use a zebra texture, just like the GLR-in-Avenue stations.
- There are no markings; for GLR there are no markings anyway, but all other RTMT stations do have (optional) markings for bus stops. The textrure files (currently with V3.5) should be updated accordingly (include markings for T-RAM networks too). Exisitng markings will simply not fit.

Agreed on both points.  The only reason these station were released at this point at all was that there were no stations for T-RAM.  So I wanted to do something that was quick, good quality, and functionally bug free.  The two features you mention definitely belong in the stations; they simply would have stretched out their release too long, for two reasons:  1) I didn't know exactly how much work was involved, especially with the textures, where new overlays were clearly needed, but it was clear the amount of work was not trivial; and 2) due to pressing RL issues, I was going to have to wrap this up soon, or have it delayed longer for that reason.  But it was due to the lack of these features and others that I called these "Interim" stations, and people in general seemed to be quite happy with them in their current state.  Nevertheless, I agree completely with you about the need for zebra stripes and pavement markings, and they will be present in the V4.0 release.

- I think the lampposts not only overload the lot with props, to my opinion they look odd too. No other RTMT stations have lampposts. Also I don't know if T-RAM displays lightpoles (GLR-in-Avenue does, after running the game for a few game-months afrer plopping). In such a case they will look really odd. And not no mention that these ones are not from SC4 iteslf (are they ?), so an additional dependency would be required. So I think these should better be removed (sorry j-dub).

There are two questions here.  First, are the stations overloaded with props?  I admit I'm not a great judge of this, so it would be good to hear opinions from others as well.  Second, as for the lampposts themselves, I thought they looked quite reasonable in the day view, and I really liked the look in the night view.  Even though some of the shelters are illuminated (and only some of them), the lampposts illuminate the area where the Sims are going to be waiting for both bus and tram.  It's true that other RTMT stations don't have lightposts, but I liked these so much that I think maybe they should be available as a customization option.  A selection of possible lampposts could then be included.  I would get significant feedback from users before doing anything along these lines.

The T-RAM puzzle pieces themselves do not display lampposts.  But I don't think it makes these look odd; in the US, at least, it's not uncommon to have lighting around certain public facilities even if the rest of the street is dark.

The lampposts themselves are used on the NAM Underground Rail pieces; for this reason, it would probably be good to add them to Ebina's stations for the sake of consistency.

I develop with my plugin folders almost completely empty to avoid unexpected dependencies, but I did need the NAM for these stations.  Sure enough, these lampposts come from the NAM.  This raises an interesing question:  How many RTMT users don't have the NAM installed?  There may be some, and I share your reluctance for adding dependencies.  But if these lampposts are optional, and available only through customization, the question becomes:  How many RTMT users customize their stations but don't have the NAM installed?  My guess is that that number is either zero or very close to it.  So I'm considering (for V4) listing the NAM as a dependency, but only for people who customize their stations.  In V3.50, there is only one set of stations dependent on the NAM:  the GLR-in-Avenue.  But in V4 we will be quadrupling that early on by adding T-RAM, Underground Rail, and SAM stations.  So the usage of RTMT for NAM-specific networks is going to be increasing substantially anyway.  I'd like to get more feedback from users on this issue.

- As the lot is two-tiles long, the props could be moved off the middle, like in 1x2 Road/Bus Stations. This will fit better with the zebra texture too.

I experimented with this with the plain GLR station; there's a nice little space in the middle for the zebra stripes.  I'll probably revise the other GLR station in a similar manner.

- Maybe the GLR-only and Bus-only lots could be one-tile long instead.

The bus-only lot currently is 1x1.  I was thinking about Chrisim's recommendation to have plain GLR "stops" instead of "stations"; i.e., no shelters, both for T-RAM and GLR-in-Avenue.  I'd like to add these, as his point about realism is well taken here.  But I think tram stops need to be two tiles long, due to the size of trams.  Of course, they could be 1x1 with an overhang, although I'd have to remove the station orientation restriction first.  But it looks like that's coming soon.

- I wouldn't rule out subways either. The sidewalks are very narrow (1m), but the subway props for RTMT are narrow too (2.3m). The props can use all space on the sidewalk and protrude 1.3 to the lots behind the station. They won't look very very nice, and there may be restrictions to where these could be placed (most lots won't have any problem at all though), but hey, you can have subways for T-RAM this way!. My only reservation is technical, ie this requires that the prop centre lies outside the lot, and I don't know if this works (LE won't allow to save such a lot, but the prop can be moved using the reader). Otherwise this would require an overhung subway prop.

You know me - I like features.    So yes, I would very much like T-RAM lots with subways on them.  I think what you propose is the only way this can be done, though.  And I wouldn't have the subways stick out much into the sidewalk - otherwise, we force the poor Sims into the street.  (Actually, with the standard T-RAM paths, they'd simply walk over the subway.  )  And of course, this would work only for certain locations.  For buildings with large plazas, I think it would work very well.  And if we can do this for subways, why not for bus shelters?  There are many possibilities here.

- I think you should not release GLR-on-Road GLR stations. The inner black areas are actually road lanes, and the GLR shelter prop on top of the lanes looks unrealistic. Players can use the GLR-in-Road to GLR-in-Road transition pieces before and after the station. You can't do this with textures as this dictates the GLR prop's lenght (eg you won't be able to use the long model there). For GLR-on-Road you should only make busstops (and subways and bus/subway combos if you finally include subways).

Two questions here:  1) Unrealistic for which countries?  I'll admit this is not a common sight, but that's not to say you'd never see it.  And especially for stations with no platforms or only a center platform, I don't think it looks bad.  It also avoids the traffic jams that would form by reducing the number of lanes, especially since the trams don't occupy the stations most of the time.  2) As SimFox has noted, different people have different ideas of what's realistic.  For those who think these stations are unrealistic, I have mentioned the alternative using transition pieces in the ReadMe file.  So this way, people have their choice.

Hope everything works smoothly, and this is released soon.

Thanks!  It's worked out quite well so far, with the response being much more enthusiastic than I anticipated.  Originally, I was only going to post these on the STEX, with a separate link in this thread, since these are only interim stations, but the response on the STEX was so positive that I posted them on the LEX as well, where the response has been equally positive.

BTW, your T-RAM buttons look fine, and yes, you might as well do ones with subways, as it looks like they will be needed at some point.  When you have your whole menu set finished, please send it to me, and I'll be sure it gets into V4.0.

Now all I have to do is finish V4... 

[z]

I am currently planning to remove RTMT stations for intersections from the proposed feature list, and I thought I should post notice of that here and describe my reasons before taking any final action.

First of all, the feature provides no additional functionality, as an RTMT station abutting a standard 4-way intersection will serve avenues, roads, or streets perfectly well, in any combination.  Secondly, such stations would destroy the turning lanes in the roads or avenues going into the intersection, for those people who use this feature.  This is made even more significant by the fact that RTMT stations for turning lane squares are on the drawing boards, and will be fairly simple to make.

For these reasons, I think that the RTMT stations for intersections would not be a useful project for the RTMT Team, and unless people have strong arguments to the contrary, I will remove it from the proposed feature list shortly.

[z]

Just about everyone is familiar with the way various civic buildings show up highlighted in bright green when shown in their respective View in SC4.  With my modified Traffic Volume View (which comes bundled with Simulator Z, and is available on the LEX for other traffic simulators), all transit buildings show up highlighted in green when this view is used.  Unfortunately, RTMT currently has no transit buildings, only props, so its stations are not highlighted in any way.  This is about to change, though.  Cogeo has constructed an invisible building that floats above the RTMT lots, and is in the form of the RTMT logo.  Furthermore, this logo reaches a height of 40m, which makes it visible in almost every neighborhood, except those consisting virtually entirely of tall skyscrapers.  Finally, Cogeo experimented a bit with the colors.  Unfortunately, there appears to be no way to use the logo colors for this effect, as the green component is always maxed out to 255 by the game.  For comparison, below are the original logo, the logo in standard green, and the logo when the original colors are imposed over the standard green:

              

There are basically three possibilities here:  1) We could simply use the logo in the standard green.  2) We could use the multicolored logo shown above on the right.  3)  We could use some other colors for the logo, the only restriction being that the green component of each color must be 255.

If we were to pick new colors, some colors could be repeated for multiple letters, of course.  The more adventurous of you might want to see what you can do under these limitations.  In any case, what do people think?  Should we go with #2, #3, or a custom-designed #4 (to be supplied by those who favor it)?

[pierreh]

I would go for the logo in standard green, being closer to the other transit buildings also highlighted in bright green, for the unity of display style in the Traffic Volume View (which I appreciate a lot with Simulator Z).

[FrankU]

I agree with Douzerouge.
Completely green fits with the other views and it is effective enough. Colours are fun, but don't put energy where it has no effectiveness. If it would be possible to highlight busstops in other colours than tram stops it would be really good! But I guess that's not possible, because you would have thought about it and would have proposed something.

[z]

I agree with Douzerouge.
Completely green fits with the other views and it is effective enough. Colours are fun, but don't put energy where it has no effectiveness.

Yes, we have decided to go with green.  Part of the reason for this is that no one could figure out a color scheme that looked reasonable with the limitations that I outlined above.

If it would be possible to highlight busstops in other colours than tram stops it would be really good! But I guess that's not possible, because you would have thought about it and would have proposed something.

Actually it is possible, and we have considered it.  However, it would be a lot of work.  Not only are there bus stops and subway stops, but there are tram stops and underground rail stops.  And there are about 15 legal combinations of these four that are actually used (or will be actually used).  If we were to do this, rather than different colors, we would probably replace the logo with different letters for each type of station; combo stations would have multiple letters.  That's still a bit much work for right now, but if people want that, I could put that on the proposed to-do list.  It does have a certain appeal - one look out over your city and you could see which stations were where.  I think it would be good for people to see what the current system looks like first, though - it's not that far from release.

[FrankU]

I will be happy with everything you come up with!
If it is possible to see the stations, it will be enough for me. Probably there will be too much information on the screen if every stop has its own colour or lettercombination and it will not be useful anymore.
What really would be nice is to have a possibility to show the map without buildings, but with streets. So that I will be able to place new busstops between skyscrapers without the risk of destroying them. I am aware of the fact that this is not a simple task, but when I see what NAM and other teams have done to the game, I have the feeling that anything is possible.

[cogeo]

Hmmm, I'm favouring something different.

You know my preference for symbols over labels. They are instantly recognisable, and if coloured properly they would be more helpful. As for which symbols to use, for buses take a look here on Wikimedia. I especially like the BW one (Bus-logo.svg), this would look great in blue (well, cyan actually). For (heavy) trains take a look at this.

And this solution is not as complicated as it may look at first:
- There must be made 4 models/textures (bus, sub, GLR, rail).
- For each station type, these can be combined by using a RKT4 property (instead of RKT0).

This scheme is easily customisable too, eg one could make his own by just replacing (overriding) just those four images!

[z]

I will be happy with everything you come up with!

Ah, an easy man to please! 

If it is possible to see the stations, it will be enough for me. Probably there will be too much information on the screen if every stop has its own colour or lettercombination and it will not be useful anymore.

You didn't like the signs in the picture in the Station Highlighting thread and below?    They show up only in the various specialized transit views.

What really would be nice is to have a possibility to show the map without buildings, but with streets. So that I will be able to place new busstops between skyscrapers without the risk of destroying them.

Do you mean like this:

I am aware of the fact that this is not a simple task...

It most certainly was! 



Cogeo, you raise some excellent points that require a detailed reply; I should be getting to them tomorrow.

[JoeST]

excellent modification there z

Joe

[z]

Cogeo, I'd like to address the points you made about the station signs in reverse order, as my response will make more sense that way.

And this solution is not as complicated as it may look at first:
- There must be made 4 models/textures (bus, sub, GLR, rail).
- For each station type, these can be combined by using a RKT4 property (instead of RKT0).

This scheme is easily customisable too, eg one could make his own by just replacing (overriding) just those four images!

When I was designing the current signs, I thought it would be nice (and time-saving) if their parts could be made modular, so they could just be combined differently for different stations.  But being relatively new to this part of SC4, your solution didn't occur to me.  As soon as I saw it, though, I realized that your proposal of using an RKT4 for these signs would be ideal for this situation.  And you're also right that by proper use of the RKT4, the whole thing could be completely customizable; people would simply have to replace a single FSH file for any travel type they wanted to replace.  All the offsetting would be done in the RKT4, of course.  Very clever! 

Now for my comments on your specific proposal about symbols:

You know my preference for symbols over labels. They are instantly recognisable, and if coloured properly they would be more helpful. As for which symbols to use, for buses take a look here on Wikimedia. I especially like the BW one (Bus-logo.svg), this would look great in blue (well, cyan actually). For (heavy) trains take a look at this.

If there is demand for this, we could certainly put them in as an option.  The amount of work, as you pointed out, is reasonably small.  My biggest concern would be that this would be yet another option in an installer that's going to be full of options.  My second concern is that at the lower zoom levels, the symbols may be harder to tell apart than words  So I would want to establish the existence of a demand for this feature before implementing it.  I'm thinking of the closest analogy to this, which is the road markings.  I have not heard anyone request symbols instead of words for these; have you?  I think there's more demand for having these in other languages, but that's many times the effort of a single set of symbols.

So for the V3.60 release, I think I'm just going to stick with English words, which is what I understand to be most in demand, but this way I can get them implemented for all the stations.  And by using your suggestion about the RKT4, everything will be completely customizable from Day 1.  Meanwhile, depending on demand, we can see about using symbols and other languages for future releases.  (All the standard text that is currently available in multiple languages will be made available in multiple languages for the new stations in time for the V4.0 release.)

Are other people interested in symbols for the station signs as well?  Or additional languages?  Please post if you are, as it would be very helpful to know this for planning purposes.  I will also be adding these choices to The Eternal RTMT New Features Poll once V3.60 has been released.

[tamorr]

    I personally prefer the Text over the symbols, although the symbols might be a good alternative to some people... I am definately an english speaker, but it would definately benifit the community to have a few languages implimented, the most common anyhow, unless someone else has suggestions. It is better to have it as an option to choose between the two if it is added, that way each could choose their preference. That is my opinion on the subject at hand.

[cogeo]

This is what I was talking about.



The icons were separate models, but as RKT4 offsets unfortunately don't work for buildings (only for props), i had to merge them (but they still reference the four images), so changing them is easy.

Haven't yet made all combinations for U-Rail, but you can see its icon at the bottom left (over the bus x2 stop - I know this is wrong, sorry). Btw I don't know which combinatios exist (or will be made) and which not, esp the ones that involve U-Rail plus GLR, though in theory a station with all four transit types could exist (GLR on pedmall, with U-Rail and subway undrneath, placed next - not on top of - to a road, so that it can also service buses). A bit extreme case, but in thery it can exist.

The rail icon could be a bit more green, so that it's easier to ditinguish from bus. Unfortunately, with the green (of the highlight mask) set to the max possible value, the "warmest" colour that can be achieved is yellow, and the "coolest" cyan.

The icons are all displayed by using a Resource Key Type 0 property. There is no point in using RKT3, if all zooms show the same model view, then it's like RKT0. But it might be meaningful to provide (relatvely) enlarged model views for the farthest zooms, for better distinctiveness. And with the S3D tool (SC4 Model Tweaker) recently released, it's easy as well.

Also, someone who knows the properties of S3D files and the blending parameters, could probably achieve to make them looking through buildings, like the UDI automata, but I don't really know, this may be something custom.

Hope you like them.

[sithlrd98]

I think this is an awesome idea...like the icons! Ya'll are incredible!

Jayson

[Pat]

stunning just stunning wow!!!!

[CaptCity]

While usually more of a 'text' person myself, I must say these look really good and will be very welcome...

[z]

This is what I was talking about.
...

Well, the responses following that message certainly answered my questions about demand.  I will be very happy to put these in as an alternative option to the text signs.  One suggestion:  Would you consider putting the RTMT logo on top of these icons, as I did (see the picture below)?  The NAM people are talking about making signs like this standard for all stations, so I think it would be nice to have our logo on top of our stations.  Also, it immediately lets people know that these are road top stations.

I'm going to be making a few changes to my signs, so you might want to hold off on sending your icons until I've got mine finished.  Then I can also give you the model files with the IDs in them.

The icons were separate models, but as RKT4 offsets unfortunately don't work for buildings (only for props), i had to merge them (but they still reference the four images), so changing them is easy.

That's really too bad - being able to use the RKT4 offsets would have allowed this to be completely modular.  I assume that when you say they don't work, they're disregarded, so they might as well be left at zero.  Is this correct?

There is a silver lining to this, though.  Since all the offsets have to be in the S3D files that point to the FSH file, customization can be complete; for example, the icons don't have to be the same size as the text labels.  (FWIW, I'm using 48 pixels as a height for the labels; the S3D file is then set to stretch this by 50%.)

The icons are all displayed by using a Resource Key Type 0 property. There is no point in using RKT3, if all zooms show the same model view, then it's like RKT0. But it might be meaningful to provide (relatvely) enlarged model views for the farthest zooms, for better distinctiveness. And with the S3D tool (SC4 Model Tweaker) recently released, it's easy as well.

Also, someone who knows the properties of S3D files and the blending parameters, could probably achieve to make them looking through buildings, like the UDI automata, but I don't really know, this may be something custom.

These last two points are very much connected.  First, let me repost my picture with the current labels.  (It's the dual BUS/SUB that are currently each 48 pixels high; all labels will be this height when I switch to the RKT4.  The picture is at Zoom 3.)



All the signs are shown; none are hidden behind buildings.  Notice that the ones in front of the picture appear to be at ground level, while amongst the tall buildings, they're as high as they need to be to be seen.   This also makes them fit exactly in the right space in the Traffic Volume View.  (They're just a little bit off center, because this city uses lots with the original building, which I've now centered to make the signs always centered.)  I accomplished this by making the base of these signs 1000m high, which should be high enough to clear just about any building, and then by adjusting the x and y offsets so that the appear directly over the station.  This type of approach may very well be exactly what Maxis has done with both UDI and the Traffic Volume and Congestion Views.  As you can see, it works quite well.  However, you can't use an RKT0 with this, because the game uses one viewing angle for Zooms 4 through 6, and different viewing angles for each of Zooms 1 through 3.  Due to the large height of these signs, different x and y offsets are required for the four different viewing angles, so I am currently using an RKT3; when I switch to the RKT4, I'll use the RKT1 subtype, as I'm only required to specify one rotation.  I think a similar scheme might work well for you.